Statement on the gender critical movement and the far right

[hellotowel]

https://x.com/GCAntiFarRight/status/1823790909462602205

"We, the undersigned, are deeply disturbed that populist messages particularly targeting Muslims have gained traction among significant numbers of social media accounts associated with the gender critical movement."
Read and sign our statement below.
https://gcantifarright.wordpress.com/2024/08/13/statement-on-gc-movement-and-the-far-right/

And on the "cant we criticise Islam, then?" point - oh yes we can. I have extensive, heartfelt and bitter criticisms of a lot of religious activity, everything from Islam to Catholicism to Sikhism, to Quakerism to Judaism, to Buddhism to Christianity, to Hinduism to paganism. But when I look at what I find objectionable, it's almost always about how men in these religions are treating women. Even bloody Humanists are at it.

Nope. Some people may be, I don't think everyone is. I doubt even the majority are. I'm saying that when people are cosying up to, or aligning with or amplifying, or whatever language you want to use, far right accounts and narratives, then people can call them out if they want. As was said upthread. If you don't agree you don't have to sign the statement & even if you do agree you don't have to sign the statement. It's all good.

Why would you say "probably not"? The one thing we all do usually agree on is that male violence is wrong. I'd imagine most of us were also utterly unsurprised that a man who made much of transgressing women's boundaries was found to be an abuser in other ways.

I believe we need all approaches. But I feel the tribalism on both sides is pushing me to come down on one side or the other, either to denounce academic feminists or ordinary women that I have more in common with who may, rightly or wrongly have concerns that other people don't approve of. I'm not going to if I can help it. But if I did, I'd be on the free speech side.

It's a weird assertion from the same sort of place as 'you don't want right-wing women to have rights'

Yes, absolutely agree on this.

It's a weird assertion from the same sort of place as 'you don't want right-wing women to have rights'

Your lack of understanding of my point about right wing women is not my issue.

Yeah this.

I am not bothered about this.

This constant issue being bought up is because in a number of recent popular podcasts they have been comparing the reasons why U.K. and US trans vs women’s rights have differed.

The conclusion was U.K. women made it a bipartisan issue. They didn’t try to make it left vs right (like in America). Hence UK got somewhere. America didn’t.

Don’t let these posts divide and conquer you. They don’t give a fuck about the far right. It’s not about that. It’s about you.

Who here has said that they don't want right-wing women to have rights???

It was not meant to be a cryptic post...it is pretty plain and clear what I was saying. You don't need to read anything into it.

Again, it's very telling as to why some posters start and post on these threads.

Who here has said that they don't want right-wing women to have rights???

You're responding to a bad faith interpretation of something I said.

It's been said on previous threads. I don't remember who said it TBH. The train of thought seemed to be if you criticise the far right it means you don't believe that far right women should have access to single-sex spaces. Similar to if you criticise the far right you must be fine with men involved with Pride sexually abusing children.

Though I'm reading this thread with a kind of horrid fascination, and I can see both sides, I would have thought that left wing people who are gender critical would see that their (our) left wing allies on most issues are often completely in thrall to the dangerous and ridiculous TRA agenda. From my perspective, both anti-immigrant and trans identity politics are obnoxious and troubling.

The train of thought seemed to be if you criticise the far right it means you don't believe that far right women should have access to single-sex spaces.

That's not the "train of thought". It means that many women see this issue as a cross political, single issue that they will campaign for with people they do not otherwise agree with. Some examples of women I have amplified on this issue who I strongly disagree with on some issues: KJK, Riley Gaines, Caroline Farrow. And I support them when they are harassed and attacked because they know what a woman is.

I think a lot of left wing people are anti semitic and/or handwave it away, but I will still amplify them on this specific issue, because their other views aren't relevant to me when campaigning on this issue.

Though I'm reading this thread with a kind of horrid fascination, and I can see both sides, I would have thought that left wing people who are gender critical would see that their (our) left wing allies on most issues are often completely in thrall to the dangerous and ridiculous TRA agenda. From my perspective, both anti-immigrant and trans identity politics are obnoxious and troubling.

Yes, exactly.

this should be compulsory reading for a LOT of people.

I sympathise with your position. I try (and probably fail) to avoid telling people off for their views, and prefer to question their opinions and statements. But X is a platform that seems expressly designed to encourage self righteousness and anger, and it's quite difficult to avoid being sucked in.

But X is a platform that seems expressly designed to encourage self righteousness and anger, and it's quite difficult to avoid being sucked in.

It does, and the algorithm is designed to do so.

You do know that KS is seriously considering making Islamaphobia a hate crime. This is part of the mix. The teacher from Batley is still in hiding.

Discriminating against someone because of their religion is already - rightly - against the law. Banning any criticism of either a religion, or how its' adherents practice it, seems very close to reintroducing blasphemy laws, which won't fly.

I'm talking specifically about a post on a different thread that stated something along the lines of 'so you don't think women on the far right should have single sex spaces'. This conclusion was arrived at because some people had challenged some associations that people had with far right groups. I'm comparing that to the post that suggested that because women wanted to distance themselves from the far right it somehow followed that they probably wouldn't be upset with CSA.

I think people are entitled to draw their red lines where they want. I might amplify some women I disagree with on other issues, but I might think others are a step too far, and for me that would include antisemites. For me. I'm not fixing anyone else's boundaries.

Why do you feel the need to come onto this board, though, to do that? It's clearly provocative. I'd say this board is better for engaged and in depth critical thinking, rather than dismissive moral policing. For looking into the ideas behind certain narratives.

As for those certain "narratives" - I think all narratives need to be looked at, considered and deconstructed......not just dismissed as inherently unworthy. Some of these narratives may be spoken in unvarnished, uneducated terms by unvarnished and uneducated people - but beneath all narratives there lies a value system and a set of expectations that it helps to understand.

To me that letter is a public shunning. I don't like it and it's counterproductive. Who will represent women when talks are held with government, who will be excluded.
Bet they're frothing that Sammy Woodhouse tweeted this:

Had a really positive meeting today with Labour’s Secretary of State for Transport, Louise Haigh.

We spoke not only about the licensing issues but about my work around criminal, sexual exploitation and children born from rape.

Stay tuned!

https://x.com/sammywoodhouse1/status/1824125550304145445?t=0cD6ATSNtXvymN2UzZ-tQg&s=19

The thing about boundaries is that when they are insecure they can be very brittle and defensive; but when operating in a more healthy way they are established around confidence. You don't need to artificially "distance" yourself from something if you don't naturally align with it in the first place.

What is it you are so keen to try to distance yourself from, and why?

Islamophobia is already a hate crime, and has been for some years.